You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

i'm not sure i agree with MJD looking good, but outside of that...pretty bang on.

To clarify, I meant that he was hitting the spots hard, had good movement, and was generally getting to the right spot. He wasn't overly effective, and that was a mix of lack of push by the line and him not cutting back entirely effectively. He looked good in relation to how it pertains to his "holdout situation," is what I meant._________________
Live like you're down 3-1

i'm just not sure on that. i have a hard time imagining that stud QB would've saved us in a game like today. i'm by no means going to break out my pom poms and be a Gabbert cheerleader, but i also don't think he's bad enough that he's the only thing separating us from the playoffs.

I mean, you put Gabbert on the Bears on Thursday night and i think that's an even bigger mess of a game than it was. And yet, i have a very hard time imagining that Cutler on the Jaguars would've won us the game today...or even kept us close.

But, again, that's arguably the best team in the AFC we faced today. Not many teams period are going to beat them.

Yes, they need work on other areas, but a QB makes up for a lot.

The two best teams in the regular season last year were the Pats and the Packers. Both of those teams were absolutely abysmal in the run game and on defense, yet they combined for a 29-3 regular season record, just based off the strength of their QB and receivers._________________
Live like you're down 3-1

i'm not sure i agree with MJD looking good, but outside of that...pretty bang on.

To clarify, I meant that he was hitting the spots hard, had good movement, and was generally getting to the right spot. He wasn't overly effective, and that was a mix of lack of push by the line and him not cutting back entirely effectively. He looked good in relation to how it pertains to his "holdout situation," is what I meant.

That's certainly fair. Relative to his holdout status, he looked fine. But there were plenty of aspects of his game that looked rusty and underwhelming by 'normal MJD' standards to me.

But again, that's nitpicking. A solid breakdown as a whole.

iPwn wrote:

Tugboat wrote:

i'm just not sure on that. i have a hard time imagining that stud QB would've saved us in a game like today. i'm by no means going to break out my pom poms and be a Gabbert cheerleader, but i also don't think he's bad enough that he's the only thing separating us from the playoffs.

I mean, you put Gabbert on the Bears on Thursday night and i think that's an even bigger mess of a game than it was. And yet, i have a very hard time imagining that Cutler on the Jaguars would've won us the game today...or even kept us close.

But, again, that's arguably the best team in the AFC we faced today. Not many teams period are going to beat them.

Yes, they need work on other areas, but a QB makes up for a lot.

The two best teams in the regular season last year were the Pats and the Packers. Both of those teams were absolutely abysmal in the run game and on defense, yet they combined for a 29-3 regular season record, just based off the strength of their QB and receivers.

I'm of the opinion, and i know it's not the most popular one...but i see defensive effectiveness as being on a bit of a sliding scale, relative to offensive explosiveness.

That is, a team like GB/NE/etc has a defense that looks lackluster statistically in part due to the explosiveness of their offense. In contrast, a team like the Jaguars last year for example...look better statistically, by virtue of teams being content to make the safe plays down the field, protect their huge lead, and without worry of an offensive explosion the other way.

A day like today, where the Texans were content to dink and dunk down the field because we did a miserable job of stopping the easy path to the endzone...why risk more?

When you're playing a team like the Packers or Pats, you know that at any moment, they could explode for a huge play or a quick strike TD drive. Your defense is going to do their best to stop them, but it's going to impact your offensive approach as well if you're in it at all. Your offense is going to start trying to match that, leaning to the more aggressive strategy. It happens on a lot of different levels, and the defenses of those lethal 'quick strike' offensive teams face that sort of mindset and gamplan pretty much every week. I think that's also a big part of why you typically see those sort of defenses labelled as 'turnover defenses' or 'big play defenses'. The sort that give up a lot of yardage and points, but also capitalize on other teams trying to force aggressive gameplans with turnovers, sacks, big plays, etc.

Obviously there are exceptions to this, and it's a pretty blurry way of characterizing defenses, but i think there's a lot of value to it. And it all ties in with the fact that we don't have an explosive offense.

Which i completely agree with you, on the fact that an explosive offense can entirely turn around a teams' fortunes. A true star QB and receivers who are on the same page along with the right playcalling...and you've got a completely different team.

It's just that on that sliding scale of effectiveness, i'm not sure our defense is that great, and our offense certainly isn't. It's a bit of an 'identity crisis'. What sort of team is this going to be really?

And when you talk about the Bears...i don't think we're better in any way really. Maybe our 'healthy' O-Line is a bit better...but that's about it. And regardless...the Bears have an identity...yet are still a middling team. Is that what we're building towards? Middling status?

I'm of the opinion, and i know it's not the most popular one...but i see defensive effectiveness as being on a bit of a sliding scale, relative to offensive explosiveness.

That is, a team like GB/NE/etc has a defense that looks lackluster statistically in part due to the explosiveness of their offense. In contrast, a team like the Jaguars last year for example...look better statistically, by virtue of teams being content to make the safe plays down the field, protect their huge lead, and without worry of an offensive explosion the other way.

Ehh, each of the Pats (2007), Packers (2010) and Saints (2009) have paired a incredible offense with a great defense, so I don't really think I can agree with that. The Colts had several #1 scoring defenses in the league in Peyton's later years there.

Nor do I really agree with how this relates to our team last year. We were in almost every game last year, so there wasn't a lot of foot off the pedal from the teams we faced.

I agree that it can play a factor, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as your post seems to suggest.

Quote:

And when you talk about the Bears...i don't think we're better in any way really. Maybe our 'healthy' O-Line is a bit better...but that's about it. And regardless...the Bears have an identity...yet are still a middling team. Is that what we're building towards? Middling status?

I did what now?

The Bears are a good team since acquiring Cutler. They had some problems last year after he and Forte went down, but other than that, they've been a good team.

And no that's not what we're building towards, but if Gabbert becomes a Cutler, that's one of the possible turnouts for team._________________
Live like you're down 3-1

I just think that if you aren't concerned about the overall level of talent that Gene Smith has acquired for this team(his primary job) in the past 4 years, you aren't really looking at it objectively.

That being said, this season still has a chance to become a positive one. Not necessarily by turning the tides completely and winning some games to maybe get to .500, because I'm not sure that's even possible given the state of the team, but if we see actual improvement by the end of the year in the places we need it most, it would be acceptable. If by the end of the year we're 6-10 but we were in a lot of games towards the end, Gabbert puts up decent numbers and looks closer to week one than week two, the defense picks it up after some guys come back, Blackmon decides to show up.. hey, that's something to build on._________________

I just think that if you aren't concerned about the overall level of talent that Gene Smith has acquired for this team(his primary job) in the past 4 years, you aren't really looking at it objectively.

That being said, this season still has a chance to become a positive one. Not necessarily by turning the tides completely and winning some games to maybe get to .500, because I'm not sure that's even possible given the state of the team, but if we see actual improvement by the end of the year in the places we need it most, it would be acceptable. If by the end of the year we're 6-10 but we were in a lot of games towards the end, Gabbert puts up decent numbers and looks closer to week one than week two, the defense picks it up after some guys come back, Blackmon decides to show up.. hey, that's something to build on.

Not in to panic, nor am I in to blaming Gene Smith for injuries.

Do you honestly believe this year's team is a bad one without the injuries? If you do, I doubt your objectiveness as well._________________

Go ahead and throw around words like panic to try and put down any criticism of the management of the team. Is there something about my tone that suggests I'm panicking? Have I blown anything out of proportion? Let's try and have a discussion without having to use meaningless attacks such as "panic" or "homer."

As for your question, do I think we'd be a bad team without all the injuries? Depends on your definition of bad. I don't think we'd be a playoff team, and probably wouldn't be in the hunt towards the end of the season. The only saving grace is that the division as a whole is crap this year. That's my opinion. If you think we'd be THAT much better without the injuries, that's fine too. You still failed to address my main point that the overall talent is lacking on the roster, disregarding the injuries. I guess I'm panicking to have that opinion, right?

Edit: So why would my objectivity come into question? I don't have any bias against Gene Smith. I've met the man in person multiple times, he's a genuinely good guy who really cares about the team and its success, there's no doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that his tenure hasn't exactly been the model of excellent general managing._________________

Go ahead and throw around words like panic to try and put down any criticism of the management of the team. Is there something about my tone that suggests I'm panicking? Have I blown anything out of proportion? Let's try and have a discussion without having to use meaningless attacks such as "panic" or "homer."

As for your question, do I think we'd be a bad team without all the injuries? Depends on your definition of bad. I don't think we'd be a playoff team, and probably wouldn't be in the hunt towards the end of the season. The only saving grace is that the division as a whole is crap this year. That's my opinion. If you think we'd be THAT much better without the injuries, that's fine too. You still failed to address my main point that the overall talent is lacking on the roster, disregarding the injuries. I guess I'm panicking to have that opinion, right?

Edit: So why would my objectivity come into question? I don't have any bias against Gene Smith. I've met the man in person multiple times, he's a genuinely good guy who really cares about the team and its success, there's no doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that his tenure hasn't exactly been the model of excellent general managing.

this team does lack talent. Every year its the same team lacks talent our offense just looks slow same with our defense. Quit using injuries as an excuse people, the eagles yesterday were down to their last 5 linemen they had, down a score and still won against the ravens. I am sick of hearing about injuries. Get some damn depth on this team holy &$%# is it that hard? Why we sign people that have nothing to do with the Jaguars or the NFL for that matter and slam them on the offensive line to start is beyond me. We had a bunch of linemen in camp should have brought one of them in. I have a feeling monroe was telling him who to block the whole game how the hell are you going to be affective doing that?

Can I get a breakdown of the game? I didn't get to watch and don't want to go through this thread that has post filled with emotion that might make me think of something more dramatically than I should.

Position by position here

QB
Gabbert was off with the receivers, but was generally making the right read. I don't remember any throws being the wrong one. The Texans were just playing good coverage, and his placement wasn't great. He left with a hamstring injury and is getting a MRI this week.

RB
MJD looked good, but he had no holes to work with. He needs to notice the cutback lanes better, but he's not a problem.

WR/TE
Could not get separation all day. Many catchable balls were missed.

OL
Monroe played excellent. Uche did a decent job on Watt, but he should have kept him engaged more. The lack of engagement led to several tipped passed. Everyone else sucked/I didn't think were very good.

Offense overall
The team could just not get into a groove today, and anytime they showed signs of life, they killed it with a penalty.

DT
Another good showing. Mosley and Knighton were effective, despite not showing up on the stat sheet. Alualu had an okay game, but was up and down.

DE
Could not get pressure. They did a decent job of containment, but just couldn't get a push.

LB
Pos looked good, Allen looked decent and was in on a lot of tackles. As a group, they weren't good. It's like they were lacking cohesion. They were abused with the short pass/screen game all game long. That, and missed tackles were highly problematic.

CB
They appeared to do great in coverage, as the Texans seemed scared to move the ball downfield. I think that helped cause more problems for the LBs, as all the passes funneled to them. Ross had problems tackling.

S
Similar "review" as the CBs. Coverage was good, tackling was okay, but had some issues.

Defense overall
Tackling issues, underneath passes and the inability of the offense to sustain a drive led to the defense being on the field too much. They seemed to hold up well despite this, and the incredible heat and humidity.

K
The only use was on the two kickoffs, and he put them both into the back of the endzone

P
Just incredible

Return team
Solid showing.

Coverage unit
Solid. There were a few uncalled blocks in the back that led to good returns, so the stat line doesn't show how good they played.

I'm probably not gonna watch this game. The stats make me depressed. Is Anger still out-kicking the coverage?_________________
Thank you daboyle250 for the sig.

Ehh. A bit, but it's not a problem. If not for the returns that shouldn't have been returns if the blocks in the backs were called, he'd be #1 in net punt yardage._________________
Live like you're down 3-1